MUHAMMAD USMAN vs NASEER MUHAMMAD and anothers
This matter arises from an acquittal appeal filed under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of respondents in a case registered under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of the acquittal appeal by a private appellant who was not the original complainant, and whether such an appeal can be converted into a revision. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant is not an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the appeal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the appeal cannot be converted into a revision in the absence of any patent illegality on the record, as the impugned judgment was passed on merits. The court dismissed the appeal, laying down that each criminal case must be decided independently on its own merits and evidence without being influenced by proceedings or findings in collateral cases.
- Is a person who is not the original complainant considered an aggrieved person competent to file an acquittal appeal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an incompetent acquittal appeal be converted into a revision when no illegality is apparent on the record?
- Does the acquittal of an accused in a collateral case under the Arms Ordinance influence the trial of a pending murder case under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 417(2-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13(e), Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---At the very first hand, the learned State Counsel has objected to the maintainability of this Acquittal Appeal filed under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. On the ground that the appellant is not an aggrieved person as he was not the complainant. He submits that the case was filed by State through police official, therefore, it can be only State who can file appeal in the case which was registered under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance. He has relied upon 2006 PCr.LJ P- 766 and 2006 YLR 354.
2. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is very much maintainable as applicant is aggrieved person as the case in hand is linked with the main murdet case and that at the initial stage the applicant was convicted by the trial Court but in appeal, has been acquitted by the appellate Court. He has relied upon 2001 PCr.LJ 2001. The apprehension of the learned counsel is that acquittal of the accused persons in this case will influence the mind of the trial Court which is seized of the main case under section 302, P.P.C. But it has no force as each and every case is to be decided on its merit based upon the evidence brought before it. The Court trying the murder case is a Sessions Court and need not to be influenced by the finding of subordinate Court or the Court equal to it in status. It is expected that finding of pending murder case will be purely on the merit of that case without any influence of finding or material brought before the Court which tried the case under the Arms Ordinance as each case is to be decided on its own merit.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has been gone through. In the said authority, it has been noticed that the acquittal Court has committed an illegality as initially it did not accept the report of the police under section 169, Cr.P.C. But later on it madethe same report basis of acquittal under section 249- A, Cr.P.C. Since that illegality was noticed by the Court, therefore, that appeal was converted into revision and acquittal was set aside. Here in the case, the situation is not the same as learned counsel has not pointed out any illegality but the appellate Court has passed the judgment on merit of the case while the Magistrate has also discussed the merits of the case.
4. ' In these circumstances, when there is no illegality apparent on record, this appeal cannot be converted into revision nor the appellant is entitled to maintain this appeal as an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Hence the same is dismissed.